The one topic that grabbed my attention the most throughout this module was copyright. Personally, I find two forms of copyright particularly interesting. The first is orphan copyright, and the second is the idea of the Creative Commons. These are the two parts I’m going to analyse.
Orphan copyright is interesting because the restrictions on works are tighter than normal copyright. Work becomes an ‘orphan’ when its “rights holders are positively indeterminate or uncontactable” (hence the name). When this happens, the work is usually locked away because the rights holder literally cannot be contacted for permission to use the work. However, I think it would be better if restrictions were to be looser, rather than tighter than normal copyright. This is because I think there is so much potential in orphan works, that an effort should be made to at least give the copyright to someone close to the original owner, and allow it back into the public domain.
Therefore, I also like the idea of the Creative Commons. ‘CC’ (Creative Commons) is defined as “a non-profit organisation devoted to expanding the range of creative works available for others to build upon legally and to share”. I think the idea of sharing work in a legal way, and building upon it in order to better it, is a great idea.
Of-course, the other side of the argument is that whoever creates something successful should be credited, and get paid for it. But I think the idea of having an organisation like the Creative Commons is a great idea, and finding a balance between the two arguments is important.
Here’s a link to Creative Commons, should you wish to browse what they offer: